and now, a word from our sponsors...

As good a summary as could be had for what happened to cause Ezra LEVANT to write "Shakedown" - a CBC News Broadcast dated Feb 14, 2008 - Syed Soharwardy has dropped his suit, Levant want to file for "abuse of process" lawsuit.

Religious Persecution?

"The only valid censorship of ideas is not to listen - Tommy SMOTHERS"

Having read "Shakedown" by Ezra LEVANT, I was made aware of the legal farce faced by Rev. Stephen BOISSION who was pursued by the AHRC in 2008 with an outrageous ruling - basically a "show trial" worthy of North Korea or Iran. I now have found Rev. BOISSION has his own website and shows he is unrepentant - which I think is a good sign as he hasn't given up - and is planning an appeal to a "real" court. He filed his claim last week (2009JUL15) and it is very interesting reading as it highlights AHRC's abuse of our constitutional rights.

Read it.

Human Rights shows its age

This image is inflammatory. It is beacuse I associate the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) with the vile repression associated with Hitler's Germany.

This article by Father DeSouza of the National Post is perfectly "pitched" to the current mood of the country. (But let me request a signature to support a petition the Conservatives to Remove Sec 13 of the CHRC .)

It is time to get rid of the HRC's in Canada. They have evolved into an instrument to smoother free speech. We must have the right to offend others by what we say (as long as no physical harm comes from it and nothing defamatory is said.) Otherwise political discussion - even unpopular discourse - will be at risk from a slow slide into PC chill.

Behaviour & Criminality

The term "Criminality" is of course derived from the word "crime" - itself a term rarely critically examined.

Crime consists of the breach of a rule or law for which some governing authority or force may ultimately prescribe a punishment. When society deems informal relationships and sanctions insufficient to create and maintain a desired social order, there may result more formalized systems of social control imposed by the State. Agents of the State thereby compel individuals to conform to behavioural codes and punish those that do not.

A normative definition views crime as deviant behavior that violates prevailing norms – cultural standards prescribing how humans ought to behave "normally". This approach considers the complex realities surrounding the concept of crime and seeks to understand how changing social, political, psychological, and economic conditions may effect the definitions of crime and the form of law enforcement, legal and penal responses made by society. Such responses can be very contentious.

For example, as cultures change and the political environment shifts, behavior may be criminalised or decriminalised, which will directly affect the statistical crime rates, determine the allocation of resources for the enforcement of such laws, and influence the general public opinion. Similarly, changes in the way that crime data are collected and/or calculated may affect the public perceptions of the extent of any given "crime problem". All such adjustments to crime statistics, allied with the experience of people in their everyday lives, shape attitudes on the extent to which law should be used to enforce any particular social norm.

There are many ways in which behaviour can be controlled without having to resort to the criminal justice system. But where there is no clear consensus on a given norm, the use of criminal law by the group in power to prohibit the behaviour of another group may be considered an improper limitation of the second group's freedom, and the ordinary members of society may lose some of their respect for the law in general whether the disputed law is actively enforced or not. [November 2008 - Wikipedia.org]

Therefore, "Criminality" refers to the measured condition of crime in a society according to the standards of existing law. When we discuss the level or degree of criminality in a society we are referring to a flexible barometer of criminal activity. Yet many people believe in an inherent condition of criminal behaviour - a "natural level of immoral aberrant behaviour" rooted in the collective DNA of society similar to the biblical story of Cain and his brother Able. Others conflate the two meanings.

Imagine if we made Jaywalking a crime, we should find the "level of criminality" very high as well as our law schools, courts and jails overflowing with new recruits and unfortunates. Tax burdens would rise to finance building jails to incarcerate the flood of new "criminals" and the economy would lose productive, tax generating members. On release, these ex-cons may have lost their old job, maybe sanctioned due to their criminal record or most likely would just be shunned by employers and former business acquaintances. Social dislocations like family poverty and lost parenting would present themselves. Psychological health consequences like loss of self-esteem, depression and suicide would increase. All because of a law.

In this article1 the authors designed six psychology experiments to test the "broken window" theory which - in their opinion - confirmed that people are more likely to break rules when they believe others have done so. This reinforces that the idea that maintaining social order prevents the spread of disorder.

[TBD = In our society, many laws are "civil" in nature and are largely administrative regulations intended to impose a monetary fine or punitive condition (like parking tickets or zoning regulations) and thereby inhibit citizens behaviours in some fashion. Other more serious laws address "criminal" activities/behaviour and are involve server sanctions needing the courts and penal system to determine guilt and punishment.]


Footnotes:
1) "The Spreading of Disorder" Kees Keizer,* Siegwart Lindenberg and Linda Steg, Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Netherlands. Study Shows How Degraded Surroundings Can Degrade by Constance HOLDEN, Science Magazine, 2008 Nov 21. (also see National Post)

How totalitarian regimes remain in power

This is a shocking first-hand account by Jean-Baptist KIM, a former "official spokesperson" of North Korea - on how propaganda and naivete are carefully cultivated within that country. Unfortunately, despite believing his disclosures, this fellows susceptibility to be a "useful idiot" must make one pause about the veracity of his interpretation. Nonetheless, it is a cruel indictment of North Korea and many other totalitarian regimes operating with careless impunity and UN complicity around the world. How sad that a noble ideal of "power of the proletariat working classes" is being so abused.

A key trait of such propaganda is controlling communication and silencing/repressing anyone who does not accept or parrot the "party line". The "Official Policy" is determined by government through control of various departments - education, health care, police and justice system. Anyone rash enough to voice an opposing opinion to someone they do not know or trust are harshly disciplined or disabused of the idea. (Does this sound vaguely familiar yet?)

In a similar vein is this account of journalistic collaboration in willfully ignoring the plentiful evidence in plain sight of all during the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-33 by the Moscow correspondent of the New York Times. Today (Nov 22, 2008) marks the 75th Anniversary of that terrible legacy created by Josef STALIN and his New York Times patsy, Walter DURANTY (see photo). As a committed socialist, DURANTY rarely let the opportunity pass without cheerleading many of Stalin's plans and was awarded the Pulitzer Prize almost entirely on the basis of his reports from Soviet Russia.

In fact DURANTY coined the famous phrase:

"You can't make an omelett with out breaking a few eggs"

He used it to describe the harsh methods employed by Stalin. It was a variant of "the ends justify the means" philosophy of ideologues and tyrants down through history.







Finally, the National Post has also printed brief profiles of famous Soviet hero, Mikhail KALASHNIKOV on the occasion of his 89th birthday. The AK-47 assault rifle bearing his name has sadly become the weapon of choice for many guerrillas around the world because of its reliability and functionality.

Michael Ignatieff - Volte Face?

Well, they're off! The next Liberal Leadership Race has begun.

Rae of Bob fired his opening salvo last week at the Ontario Caucus meeting where he changed his mind about allowing the media access to the closed door meetings at the last minute. For that party favour, he got the indulgence of the press to sling mud at Micheal Ignatieff, who suggested that the meeting was supposed to be like a meeting of "family" so they could privately discuss party concerns and issues. Seemed reasonable. He probably doesn't broadcast his call's to his wife either.

Yesterday Rae of Bob formally launched himself before Parliament opened - no doubt to dilute the massive press the Conservatives received from the Throne Speech. Basically, he is the only Liberal leadership candidate with the experience of leading a government during a recession (Premier of Ontario in October 1990 to July 1995). Umm. Not so fast Bob. Given that you will have to win seats back in Ontario and Quebec - do you have the undying devotion of the electorate?

Then today there was this "Where I Stand" piece in the National Post - honestly, I can't make head nor tail of it. Perhaps these gobbledy bits are better left as speeches?

But what about Iggy?

What do we know about him? Precious little. Here is Mike Janke's recent exploration of the man. Methinks there are worms beneath this stone best left undisturbed.

I have collected some background from a G&M profile in August 2006 by intrepid reporter Mike Valpy to provide some measure of the man, described as a genius by many Liberals.

There are some jarring vignette's.

Like when his younger brother Andrew recalled how Micheal explained how they could interact when he arrived to join Micheal at Upper Canada College in 1962.

"We went for a walk, and he said, 'I want to make one thing absolutely clear to you. When we're at Aunt Helen's house or Aunt Charity's house [Charity Grant, their mother's sister], you can say whatever you want to me. But if you ever see me on the school grounds, you're not to talk to me. You're not to recognize that I'm your brother. You don't exist as far as I'm concerned. Do I make myself clear?'"

Or when he volunteered to be a neutral observer after racial riots in a maximum security prison in Walpole MA near Harvard where he was taking his M.A in History.

"I'd had a sheltered Canadian middle-class life. I think my whole life I've been fascinated by this sense that the world is divided into zones of safety and zones of danger and violence, and the distance between the two is very small.

"In prisons, the violence is what maintains the social order. You can't think of these zones of safety as being happy, consensual, liberal. They're maintained with this, with violence."

The Walpole ordeal was a nightmarish experience for him, and back in the hallowed halls of Harvard, he was finding life brutal. He had come from provincial University of Toronto where he had been at the top of his class and was now discovering that everyone he met at America's pre-eminent institution of higher learning was smarter than he was.

Ignatieff was not well accepted at Harvard. A friend of the time believes he was betrayed by his aristocratic background. However perhaps it was good fortune as he soon landed a job teaching history at UBC and before school started, he took a break to visit his family's villa in France. En route he stopped in London and encountered Susan Barrowclough:

"a beautiful, vivacious film historian and rising young British intellectual who had studied under Federico Fellini — and sang Verdi off-key. Cupid's arrow whacked them both."

After a year of teaching, the couple found themselves back in London under a Cambridge fellowship. They found the period intellectually challenging. As Valpy recounts:

".... Michael's intelligence and knowledge, his supple political mind, his astonishing facility to write analytical prose and his rigorous discipline as an author. (He wrote two books in this period: Wealth and Virtue, on Scotland during the Enlightenment, and The Needs of Strange rs, on the philosophical conflict between individualism and communitarianism.)"

Yet the Thatcher Revolution of the time seems to have been a seminal moment. One in which Ignatieff realized that he was not a Socialist - he was a liberal.

"Mr. Ignatieff wrote an article for the December, 1984, issue of New Statesman stating that the coal miners were indeed acting against the national interest. But what his article fomented was a furor around its author. He was accused of betraying the cause. People severed friendships with him."

His writing career began - and his family life unraveled. In August 1984 at a rare family gathering where his mother's Alzheimer's condition was revealed, he denounced his father emotional detachment with wounding accusations. Other rifts developed.

"Writing about family," he says in our interview, "it's all about creating the ground under your own feet. It's kind of a process of self-invention, so that you're standing with your feet planted, you know who the hell you are, you know where the hell you came from, you know where the hell you're going."

Through the family stories he says, he gives himself away — whether they are biographical, fictional or some thicket of both fact and fiction. His relationship with George pervades much of what he writes, something he once called "working through stuff with my father."

By the summer of 1989, George Ignatieff - Micheal's father - was dead.

A man feels alone when his father dies, he says, "but I don't feel bereft, although I would give a great deal to spend another second in his company." His father, he says, taught him "ultimate loyalties — that's what fathers can do."

His brother, Andrew believed that when their father died, his own resentment toward Micheal vanished.

"I have reworked our relationship again and again. Michael floats above daily interaction and he thinks that force of will and force of intellect can override psychological and emotional factors. He's had to learn they can't. The thing that saves my relationship with him is that we can meet on an emotional level. His intellectual life is not real to me."

By 1992, their mother too has died - nursed to the end by Andrew. Micheal writes a semi-autobiographical fiction about his mother, her illness and his family. As a footnote a character that closely resembles him has an affair and is ordered out of their home by his wife.

Shortly afterward, a British newspaper gossip columnist trumpeted that Michael Ignatieff — "the patron saint of the New Man" — had left his wife for another woman.

In 1999, Michael Ignatieff married Suzanna Zsohar.

Ms. Zsohar came into Mr. Ignatieff's life at the right moment. On the crest of hard work, discipline and remarkable talent, he had travelled an awesome distance.

The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the ensuing violent eruptions of ethnic nationalism in the Balkans and elsewhere propelled him on to the global stage as an eloquent and forceful proponent of the obligations of liberal democracies to intervene in failed states to protect their inhabitants.

In television documentaries and books — Blood and Belonging, Guardians of Chaos, The Warrior's Honour, Virtual War, Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry, The Trial of Freedom and The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror — he explored the new violence of ethnicity and terror and the failure of traditional multilateral means to contain them.

The Observer gave him a weekly column. He was invited to give lectures at leading U.S. and Canadian universities and offered visiting professorships at the London School of Economics and École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris. Blood and Belonging in 1993 won the $50,000 Lionel Gelber Prize for foreign-policy writing, beating out Henry Kissinger's Diplomacy.

He became a celebrity.

And then, seemingly as quickly as it began the media turned.

"critics called him pompous, tedious, long-winded, a bore — and worse, "a Canadian bore. One paper kept referring to him as "Big Ig."

"And so, two years later, after he and Ms. Zsohar married, Mr. Ignatieff was ready to make another radical change. He junked the fading media career; he junked the British, and he came back across the pond, having resurrected himself as an academic."

"A quarter-century after leaving Harvard convinced that it was overrated, pompous and arrogant, he was back — as director of the Carr Center of Human Rights Policy, an academic think tank tucked beneath the umbrella of Harvard's prestigious Kennedy School of Government."

"He turned the Carr into a dynamic intellectual salon, crackling with scholarly electricity in all directions — looking at human rights in the context of a global responsibility to protect, philosophically re-examining the social contract, investigating the failure of civil society in places such as the Balkans, analyzing how the strong use power on behalf of the weak."

And then in early 2003, he did something that not only shocked his colleagues but brought down on his head the condemnation of the entire U.S. left. In a Sunday magazine essay in The New York Times, he declared his support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

It was 1984 all over again.

"He eloquently defended himself, writing in The Guardian, for example: "Now that combat has commenced, those, like me, who support the war need to be honest enough to address some painful questions. Who wants to live in a world where there are no stable rules for the use of force by states? Not me. Who wants to live in a world ruled by the military power of the strong? Not me. How will we oblige American military hegemony to pay 'decent respect to the opinions of mankind'? I don't know."

"To support the war entails a commitment to rebuild that order on new foundations. To support the war entails other discomforts as well. It means remaining distinct from the company you keep, supporting a swift and decisive victory, while maintaining your distance from the hawks, the triumphalists, the bellowing commentators who mistake machismo for maturity."

Then, in 2005, he again did something shocking — he suddenly resigned from the Carr to return to Canada.

Denis Smith, emeritus professor of political science at University of Western Ontario, puts it another way.

"His writings would be of no public significance, if he had continued his academic and literary career in Canada or abroad," Prof. Smith writes in his new book, Ignatieff's World: A Liberal Leader for the Twenty-first Century, to be published next month.

"But once he became a candidate for the Liberal leadership and a potential prime minister, what he has said about world affairs over two decades becomes relevant to members of the Liberal Party and to the Canadian electorate."

The observer wants to be a player.

On the night of Jan. 23, 2006 Michael Ignatieff — after a slightly dodgy acquisition of the nomination in Etobicoke-Lakeshore (all possible opponents were declared ineligible) — was elected to Parliament.

We will find out more about him soon - just as we did about M. Stephane DION - as I predict he will be the next Liberal Leader. My only question is what shall be the next glorious about-face?

The People's Courts - Canadian Style

Ezra LEVANT has described the threats to our freedom of speech that we face from the various Human Rights Tribunals across our country. He makes his case very well in this recent speech to media lawyers - and indeed, I find the similarities chilling.

Walter SCHNEIDER of www.fathersforlife.org has also alluded that the various HRC's remind him of the hated "People's Court" (or "Volksgerichtshof") of Nazi Germany (and he should know, as he was young child during WWII in Germany).

This court was established to deal with treason after a disturbed communist sympathizer - Marinus van der Lubbe - was found guilty of starting the Reichstag fire on 27 Feb 1933. He was attempting to disrupt Hitler from gaining greater political power after assuming the position of Chancellor on 30 January 1933. Hitler used the fire as a pretext to incite fears of a "communist plot" to destabilize Germany and suceeded. In the ensuing election on 05 March 1933 the Nazi's (National Socialist Party) increased their share of the vote to 44% and with support of the National People's Party were able to claim a 52% majority.

The Volksgerichtshof were "special courts" operating outside the constitutional framework of law and had jurisdiction over a broad array of "political offenses". This included crimes like black marketeering, work slowdowns, and defeatism. Such crimes were viewed by the court as Wehrkraftzersetzung ("disintegration of defensive capability") and were punished severely. From 1934 - 1945 over 2,500 political prisoners were executed at Plötzensee Prison in Berlin after being found guilty by the Peoples Court.

Louise ARBOUR's Failed UN Term?

Full Disclosure: I am not a fan of Mme. ARBOUR (see this piece).

I feel this strong denunciation by a Toronto lawyer Mr. Glenn COHEN - is unfair.

1) COHEN acknowledges the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is overrun with countries run by repressive, non-democratic regimes1. Further, it is widely acknowledged that the High Commissioner (HC) does not necessarily play a role in the Council - yet COHEN tags the numerous Council resolutions critical of Israel on Mme. ARBOUR (Mr. COHEN states that 46% of UNHRC statements in 2006 were critical of Israel. Unfortunately UN Watch's review did not include 2006). While possible that Mme. ARBOUR had some role in drafting, introducing or influencing resolutions that came before the Council - it is debatable and quite defensible that she may not have had any role in approving them what so ever.

2) According to Geneva-based Human Rights Group UN Watch, Mme. ARBOUR made 79 critical statements directed at 39 different countries during 2007/8. This amounts to 3 rebukes per month. I am sure a good deal of painstaking research from hostile resources must take place before anything is released. The majority (69) were directed at "non-democratic" nations including Myanmar who received 7 warnings - the most of any nation. Council members2 were largely absent of criticism. I am not sure if this is because they must ratify the HC's statements or what, but it is not surprising that many are not partial to being self-critical3. Israel received 4 warnings - the same as Zimbabwe, Nepal, DR Congo, Afghanistan and Sudan whereas Lebanon received only 1 "mild" citation. 4 of 79 direct citations - however misconstrued or misguided - does not seem to constitute "disproportionate" as Mr. COHEN states.

3) Condemnation of Mme. ARBOUR's decision to choose when she would "Name and Shame" or take a "quiet diplomacy" approach is moralistic. But it is a legitimate criticism. As UN Watch noted "There is no magic formula for how to criticize countries". Many influences went into her choices but presumably our evaluation of her success should measure results, not the process. Yet it is disappointing when democratic countries with a free and open press that provide balanced reportage suffer official international disapprobation whereas many countries with repressive regimes and a non-free media which is a mere front for official propaganda do not.

4) Diplomacy at the UN does not function in a simple and direct manner as one might think, in fact on close inspection it seems alot closer to "Alice in Wonderland". UN Watch identifies two seemingly innocuous resolutions under which support was indicative of "many regular acts of intimidation by regimes interested in hiding their abuses."4 Supporters unaccountably included many "free" states like Argentina, Brazil, Chile, India and Mexico, while South Korea and Switzerland merely "stood by" allowing the injustice by abstaining from the vote.

5) Given the task of taming dozens of totalitarian/authoritarian regimes, many of whom openly flaunt Human Rights can not be a simple job. Some may call it impossible. Mme. ARBOUR certainly failed in adjusting expectations and setting objectives by which she could be fairly judged.

6) If UN Watch has the neutral moral compass needed to crititic Mme. ARBOUR, she appears to have recieved what I would call a C+ grade. They have not showered Mme. ARBOUR with the same vehement criticism as Mr. COHEN.

Mr. COHEN seems to have an axe to grind. He obviously doesn't take kindly to any criticism of Israel. I have often observed such an attitude by supporters of Israel. It reminds me of the period leading up to the US invasion of Iraq. Any citizen was pilloried as disloyal to question the White House determination - dissent was quashed and a "my country right or wrong" attitude took hold. That attitude no longer has much credibility and the press has in fact faced alot of criticism for not "challenging" conventional wisdom more strongly at the time.

Undoubtedly, Mme. ARBOUR failed to tame the UNHRC - yet to believe otherwise is the failure we should address.

Footnotes:
1) The Right to Name and Shame: An Analysis of the Tenure of Former UN High Commissioner Louise Arbour with Recommendations for New High Commissioner Navanethem Pillay. August 4, 2008, UN Watch. Mme. ARBOUR was appointed High Commissioner of the UNHRC from July 1 2004 to 2008 but this report studies only 2007-8.

As UN Watch notes "As High Commissioner she is subject to the authority of the Secretary-General of the UN but wears two hats in that she serves the Human Rights Council but also has a significant role as an independent voice to promote human rights."

The Council consists of 47 nations. Those considered "*free" include Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, S. Korea, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Switzerland, Ukraine, UK and Uruguay (23) - while those "partly free*" were Bahrain, Bolivia, Bosnia, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Gabon, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Philippines and Zambia (14) - and those "not free" Angola, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia and Saudi Arabia (10). *Freedom rating taken from 2008 Freedom in the World Survey by Freedom House. 23 are free, 14 partly free and 10 not free. This means a majority of 51% (24 of 47) fall short of basic democratic freedoms.

2) Of 79 critical statements, 23 were weak, 32 moderate and 24 strong. Russia and China sustained minor rebukes.

3) As UN WATCH claimed "[Mme. ARBOUR] was silent, or spoke out no more than once, on systematic human rights abuses committed by China and Russia, both permanent members of the Security Council, and on those committed by Egypt, a country that exercises great influence at the Human Rights Council through its leading position in various UN country groupings. Similarly, Mme. ARBOUR only issued one statement for human rights victims in Angola, Chad, and Kazakhstan, whose very systems deny basic civil and political freedom." P.2, The Right ti Name and Shame.

4) They were UN Human Rights Council Resolution 7/2 of 27 March 2008, “Composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.” Sponsored by the Cuban government. Adopted by a vote of 34 in favor, 10 opposed, and 3 abstentions and UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/61/159 of 19 December 2006, “Composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.” Sponsored by the Cuban government. Adopted by a vote of 118 in favor, 7 opposed, and 55 abstentions.

Louise ARBOUR - next Liberal leader?

Now that is a scary thought - Louise ARBOUR the next Liberal Leader? Apparently she is being mooted as "interested" - although that was not evident when I heard her response recorded by an enthusiastic CBC reporter in Toronto during a LEAF luncheon today.

Unfortunately, I am not a fan of this self-satisfied feminist lawyer - or her buddies at the Supreme Court. I also do not think she did much at the International Criminal Court, which I oppose in principal. [In this matter I side with the United States who disagreed with the creation of yet another extra-governmental organization, sponsored by the UN. This opinion was strongly buttressed by Canada's role in supporting 3 major UN missions - Sarajevo, Rwanda and International Crime Commission - led by Mme. ARBOUR. All missions were conceived of by the Liberal government of Jean CHRETIEN and all were disasters. CBC Radio journalist Carol OFF, thoroughly dissected these failures in her book The Lion, the Fox and the Eagle: The Story of Generals and Justice at the UN.]

Those who refuse to pass their conceits are destined to be reminded?

Apologies to SANTAYANA1. I note that this book is coming out soon. Likewise, when Margaret MACMILLAN had her last book launched "The Uses and Abuses of History" she managed to have an excerpt printed in the National Post that highlighted the same controversy. Perhaps this is just opportunism?

However I am sympathetic to our veterans. My father was one of them until his death in 2000 - and he never spoke glowingly of his wartime experience. I think he was just glad to have survived - unlike many of his compatriots. Survivor guilt perhaps.

What I think is wrong is to re-evaluate the morality of war - after the fact. Revisionist History. War is hell - pure and simple - you either win and live or lose and die. How do we moralize that? I am sure there were probably alot of terrible things done by our us and our Allies, but they were also fighting against another tyrannical dictator who was ruthless. We now know more about the atrocity's of Buchenwald and Auschwitz that our parents did at the time - which was perhaps before the bombing of Dresden. I know that the London Blitz was as much a terror campaign as strategic bombing because my mother's family were subjected to it. My aunt patrolled the community weekly looking for anyone who had not put up blackout curtains for months on end. The fear of not knowing if your home would be hit was real. Do not tell me that was not Hitlers and Goering's intention.

[Addendum: Oct 16 A number of letters have been printed in the National Post - many from veterans - who object along the same lines. The one that was most satisfying was this one who throws the impertinant lines at the end of the article, back at them.]

Footnote:
1) George SANTAYANA The Life of Reason 1906. "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." This has produced numerous paraphraseings and variants.

Ontario Justice takes 2 body blows - same day.

Two scathing reviews of Ontario Government departments were released today.

The Province of Ontario's Ombudsman issued "Oversight Unseen" which was a review of the Ontario Attorney General's Special Investigation Unit (SIU) which investigates all police incidents that result in serious injury or death to a civilian. Established in 1990 the SIU has become "Timid and fearful of it's watchdog role". Charges are rarely laid - as in 2006 when only 2 were made out of 226 investigations. The Ombudsman, Mr. Andre MARIN made 46 recommendations to improve operations was also in charge of the SIU from 1995-98. To undertake new leadership of the department in order to study and possibly implement the review, the province has just named a Crown attorney and a former defence lawyer who has defended and prosecuted police officers - Mr. Ian D. Scott.

In addition the Goudge Inquiry released its report into Office of the Chief Corners of Ontario regarding their management practices and lack of proper oversight of pediatric forensic pathologist Dr. Charles SMITH. Retired Ontario Superior Court Justice GOUDGE indicated that the senior management of the Coroners Office failed the public.

Both cases reveal the systemic problems in the adminstration of justice and a public loss of confidence.

Human Rights Commission Charges Comedian with Not Being Funny

Laugh or cry?

Here is part of Ezra Levant's comments.

I think Heather MacNaughton has just made herself -- and the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal -- a punchline in a thousand jokes to come.

Amen